Comments on: http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/2006-03/22/ Open Rights Group Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:33:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Kevin Marks http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/2006-03/22/comment-page-1/#comment-26 Kevin Marks Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:28:59 +0000 http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/?p=22#comment-26 In response to Zoë Lofgren's Orphan works bill and the US Copyright Office's Orphan Works report: http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/ Lessig has written a very thoughtful paper on the need for registration of copyright works: http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/20060306-lofgren.pdf I do recommend reading the whole thing, as Larry is, as ever, lucid and clear-thinking, but the essence of it is: 1. New works go into copyright automatically, as now. 2. For copyright to last more than 14 years, the work must be registered with an approved registrar (he suggests competing private registrars) 3. A statutory royalty rate to be defined for works that have been orphaned, held in trust for 5 years or until the author claims it. 4. A way to reclaim ownership of an orphan work, that does not harm any derviatives created during the orphan period. I think there is a solid basis for a policy recommendation here, that could be adapted to UK Law and presented to Gowers. In response to Zoë Lofgren’s Orphan works bill and the US Copyright Office’s Orphan Works report:

http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/

Lessig has written a very thoughtful paper on the need for registration of copyright works:

http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/20060306-lofgren.pdf

I do recommend reading the whole thing, as Larry is, as ever, lucid and clear-thinking, but the essence of it is:

1. New works go into copyright automatically, as now.
2. For copyright to last more than 14 years, the work must be registered with an approved registrar (he suggests competing private registrars)
3. A statutory royalty rate to be defined for works that have been orphaned, held in trust for 5 years or until the author claims it.
4. A way to reclaim ownership of an orphan work, that does not harm any derviatives created during the orphan period.

I think there is a solid basis for a policy recommendation here, that could be adapted to UK Law and presented to Gowers.

]]> By: Julian Bond http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/2006-03/22/comment-page-1/#comment-16 Julian Bond Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:21:02 +0000 http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/?p=22#comment-16 There's a huge problem in music and literature not so much with "Orphan Works" but with works that are in Copyright but not made commercially available. This has the effect that copyright is being used as a way of keeping the work out of the market and keeping it unavailable. I think if we are to keep the current copyright terms or extend them, we have to balance that with a requirement to publish. Otherwise the public good is not being served by the temporary monopoly granted to the creator or to those that the creator assigns the rights to. There’s a huge problem in music and literature not so much with “Orphan Works” but with works that are in Copyright but not made commercially available. This has the effect that copyright is being used as a way of keeping the work out of the market and keeping it unavailable. I think if we are to keep the current copyright terms or extend them, we have to balance that with a requirement to publish. Otherwise the public good is not being served by the temporary monopoly granted to the creator or to those that the creator assigns the rights to.

]]>